'Deem and pass'

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Roger, Mar 17, 2010.

  1. Roger

    Roger 1,000+ Posts

    Yahoo on 'Deem and pass'

    What do you all think? I'm leaning towards this is a political bomb that is likely to blow in up in the Dems face if they use it.
     
  2. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    No matter how Pelosi tries to pretend this is a normal and usual procedure the way she wants to use it is NOT and likely unconstitutional.
    I think that is why they are threatening every Dem they can to get it passed on an up or down vote.

    The probem is I don't think she has enough bribes left to cover all the votes she is seeking.
    OK I hope not anyway.
     
  3. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest

    It's not technically illegal, but it lives next door to illegal. It's frequently seen hanging out at illegal's house.

    I think it takes political divisiveness to a whole new level in America.
     
  4. Roger

    Roger 1,000+ Posts

    I find it interesting that the article posted from yahoo states that the Dems are already out there saying that the Reps have used this in the past and have used more often but then the writer states for nothing anywhere near the size of healthcare, that its uses are usually on small mundane things. I also find it interesting that this was all over the morning shows today, and where they are normally cheerleading the more liberal position they were absolutely not cheerleading this potential move.
     
  5. Namewithheld

    Namewithheld 2,500+ Posts

    What people don't really understand is this procedure was used by the GOP BUT in situations where it was for debt limit increases and the like( Dems did increase the debt ceiling at least once so far this year). The Dems want to use this in a Generational alteration event ! That's scary. Can the GOP go to the SCOTUS if this goes through?
     
  6. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    Coel
    As I understand it the procedure itself is perfectly legal. It is what happens after it is Deemed and Passed that , the way things stand now could slide into trouble for Dems
    A passed House Concurrent Resolution ( which is what it would be) is never sent to the President for signature.

    The Senate would have to agree to whatever changes it makes to the Senate bill through budget reconciliation which is where the trouble comes in.

    The Deem and pass BS is just a procedure never never used without bipartisanship before and never never used for something this tramsformative.
     
  7. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest

    The Constitutionality of the procedure is still in question. As I understand it, a previous challenge to the procedure (Public Citizen v US District Court) ended with a lower court allowing it to stand. That's a different thing than affirming it as Constitutional, however.

    In that case, the Supreme Court never picked up the case. But there is no doubt that this legislation will be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.
     
  8. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    coel
    ah thanks for the information. I think I understand now why Pelosi is still trying to strong arm, threaten and bribe anyone she thinks she can sway.

    Do you think Obama Pelosi and Reid truly do not know what the large majority of people think about the bill and what they think about using this method?
     
  9. gecko

    gecko 2,500+ Posts

    I had never heard of this before the healthcare debate. When this "bomb" goes off...it needs to go off in the R's faces as well.

    I will credit Obama for one thing.....he has shed a lot of light on how our legislative process has been corrupted over the years. If this is the transparency he referred to during his campaign....I salute him for following through.
     
  10. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts

    In reply to:


     
  11. YoLaDu

    YoLaDu Guest


     
  12. HornHuskerDad

    HornHuskerDad 5,000+ Posts


     
  13. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    yo?
    "Isn't support for passage of the Senate Bill among Americans hovering right around 50%? I thought i saw that recently. "
    Which poll? Understand I am not saying you aren't right but the polls I have seen this week are pretty decidedly agains it.
    WSJ:

    3/15 Rasmussen 53 % against 43 favor
    3/16NBC/ WSJ 48 % against 36 % for

    Note in the NBC?WSJ poll people were asked if the bill should pass and changes made versus not passing the bill and no changes made.

    here from link :
    "On health care, 46 percent say it would be better to pass the president’s plan and make changes to the nation’s health care system, versus 45 percent who would prefer not to pass it and keep the system as it is now.

    Thirty-six percent believe Obama’s plan is a good idea, versus 48 percent who think it’s a bad idea. That’s a slight (but statistically insignificant) change from January, when 31 percent said it was a good idea and 46 percent said it was a bad one."
    end of quote. but read the link, even Dem pollsters are saying the people are speaking loudly
    This is where you might have read it was evenly split.
    The Link
    But there is no one, not any Repub or anyDem against obamacare that says do nothing.

    Do you have a current poll that shows the people evenly split , for or against this bill? again I am not saying it doesn't exist I am asking which poll.
     
  14. 911_horn

    911_horn 500+ Posts


     
  15. YoLaDu

    YoLaDu Guest


     
  16. texascoder

    texascoder 1,000+ Posts


     
  17. Texas Jack

    Texas Jack 1,000+ Posts


     
  18. A. BETTIK

    A. BETTIK 1,000+ Posts

    I think there should be several new Constitutional Amendments. Banning this should be a good start.

    This is the first I ever heard of this coup kind of crap. Deep Penetrating Shame on R's and D's equally who have and will use it.

    Here's a link (and contents below) to adding amendments to the Constitution: The Link

    Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

    To Propose Amendments


    •Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or


    •Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

    To Ratify Amendments


    •Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or


    •Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

    The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.

    Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.
     
  19. kgp

    kgp 1,000+ Posts

    "i know it is easier to be supportive of a general idea when cost and the details are vague or not put forth."

    When increased cost to the average Joe at $500 was included as a question in the CBS poll, the support dropped significantly (to sub-50%). This supports the principle you mentioned: as proposals' consequences are increasingly concretely communicated to voters, they are decreasingly in favor of more expensive measures.

    If I poll people on whether Americans' getting enough nutrition is a good thing, I will get very high marks. If I ask whether people have the right to access to vitamin supplements, again the number will still be pretty high. If I ask whether the government should ensure working families and children are provided with supplements, the numbers will start breaking significantly on ideological lines. If I ask whether every citizen should be forced to spend two hours a week buying vitamins out of his own pocket and delivering them door-to-door, the support drops through the floor.

    People like charity, and they don't think they would mind being charitable. They in reality do not want big chunks of their money or freedom taken. Many of them think it would be OK to make "the rich" and bad industry X give up more of their money, though.
     
  20. kgp

    kgp 1,000+ Posts

    By way of adding to Bettik's comments above, the Constitution does not allow for modification judicially. Every power it grants or denies is so until changed by the formal amendment process. It does not grant the SCOTUS the power to decide when rights it grants are no longer warranted or appropriate, period. Because it is (purposefully) so difficult to amend the Constitution, those wanting change frequently seek to (and do) achieve their ends with court cases (and/or simple legislation ignoring the original text). Recent decisions by SCOTUS affirming (in the face of arguments of stare decisis, living document, and practical importance) some of the early-enumerated rights have begun to recognize that our Constitution is still in force except as amended.
     
  21. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    ABettick
    This procedure has nev er been used in this way, ie get a bill passed without voting directly with recorded votes on the bill

    I believe the times it was used in the past were to deem amendments passed BUT the actual bill still reuired an up or down vote with recorded votes.

    Also for those who say, Well the Repubs have used this procedure, YES they have but never without any Dem votes.

    I Think Pelosi knows she better not use this and that is why she is leaning as hard as she can. Too bad obama can't take AF1 out for about 21 rides. I think they have run out of bribes and threats
     
  22. majorwhiteapples

    majorwhiteapples 5,000+ Posts

    For such a structural change in life/healthcare, the ya's should be more than 60%. A slight majority is not enough in this case to declare a victory.

    To win when 49% is against is pitiful and should set off alarms that maybe it is not good for all people.
     
  23. YoLaDu

    YoLaDu Guest


     
  24. Roger

    Roger 1,000+ Posts


     
  25. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    If the anger at this bill holds up until Nov many of the dems who cave better have gotten good bribes . I think many of not most of them will be voted out. I am speaking of the ones who flopped on this after pressure from 0bama and Pelosi


    This is sad and funny.
    On March3 Obama calls for the House to do an up or down voteThe Link

    Today the he says this
    " President Barack Obama indicated Wednesday that he does not oppose plans by House Democrats to pass his much-challenged health care overhaul without a direct vote.

    "I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate. What I can tell you is that the vote that's taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform," Obama said in an interview with Fox News.

    "If people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform," he said in an excerpt of the interview to be aired later Wednesday evening. "And I don't think we should pretend otherwise."
    The Link
     
  26. Ag with kids

    Ag with kids 2,500+ Posts


     
  27. msdw24

    msdw24 1,000+ Posts

    Can't wait till Nov to vote the Dem's out of office. Goodbye mr doggone Doggett [​IMG]
     
  28. Namewithheld

    Namewithheld 2,500+ Posts


     
  29. Coelacanth

    Coelacanth Guest

    I thought Brett Baier did a nice job with the interview. You can't force a person to answer, but you can do things to make sure it's clear to everyone that he's dodging the question, and Baier did that. Obama was on the defensive throughout.

    I also thought Obama looked very gray, almost ashen.
     
  30. Wesser

    Wesser 1,000+ Posts

    It is unconstitutional.

    It has evaded Supreme Court review thus far because the issues that have relied upon the self-executing rule have been non-controversial enough to trigger legal challenge that would garner the Supremes attention.

    However, the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York clearly dictates that Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that each house of Congress pass the exact same bill before forwarding it to the President. (This case struck down the line item veto, but outlined the entire process that must be followed for a law to survive constitutional scrutiny).

    Justice Stevens (the most liberal member of the current Court) wrote:


     

Share This Page